Conclusion

A main task of this book and its account of how Jerusalem’s physical heritage is
enmeshed in religious and national interests and struggles has been to persuade the
reader of the severity of numerous entanglements of truth and fiction, of facts and
interpretations, and thus of the elusive middle ground between science and ideology.
We cannot simply differentiate between the scientific and ideological practice of in-
quiry to recover the city’s actual physical reality, whether above the ground or below.
Indeed, capturing and investigating scrupulously and expertly the material remain-
ders of those who have passed through or settled in the city may bring us closer to
some real untainted substance of past existence, a quality more easily associated with
artifacts and buildings rather than with words or ideas. Yet, religious beliefs and po-
litical agendas have the ability to attach themselves as subtly to objects, monuments,
and places as they do in written testimonies and spiritual manifestos. Therefore, re-
gardless of the sources we use for a viable reconstruction of Jerusalem’s past, our
ideas will always remain partial and incomplete. It is the knowledge and admittance
to this subjectivity, however, that constitutes a first step in building the necessary
bridges to overcome the disparity in perception, opinion, and dogma at the root of
most conflicts over Jerusalem. Exposing the idiosyncratic nature of archaeological
practice in Jerusalem, rather than unraveling the mysteries of the past, can thus free
us from the burden we often tend to impose on the city’s cultural legacy.

C O N T E X T UA L I Z I N G I SR A E L I A R C HA E O L O G Y

One of this study’s goals was to expose the social, political, and ideological con-
text of Jerusalem’s first archaeological investigations to understand the historical

163
164    Conclusion

and religious framework that produced and shaped the field of biblical archaeol-
ogy, initially a matter of sporadic interest, but which quickly evolved into a regu-
lar affair of institutional and national profile. This query established how the dis-
cipline of excavation progressed slowly but steadily from a pursuit motivated no
less by faith and adventure than by scholarly curiosity. At first this endeavor was
governed rather chaotically by the Ottomans, then, later, more strictly and con-
scientiously under the British, and finally flourishing in a machinery of profes-
sional expertise under the Israelis. As demonstrated in this survey and analysis,
professional and scientific standards made significant progress over time, with
the control of excavations passing from independent explorers to institutions es-
tablished abroad, and then from local establishments to governmental bodies,
thus placing the power to shape the science of archaeology into the hands of an
increasingly administratively and politically powerful entity. The field thus moved
from the convictions of an individual to the beliefs of a community and the ide-
ology of a state, in which institutionalization and operationalization of strategy
have played an increasingly dominant role. The progressively structured, insti-
tutionalized, and legalized context of archaeological activity does not, however,
diminish or eliminate the power and responsibility of the individual person or
community implicated in the discovery, presentation, and even, to some extent,
the consumption of archaeological discoveries. As we know, archaeology is not an
exact science and, therefore, every individual who participates in the process of
this knowledge and story producing mechanism, carries part of the responsibility,
for better or worse.1 In concrete terms, this means that an unnamed employee of
the IAA who classifies coins from an excavation conducted in East Jerusalem is
no less implicated in the ideological aspirations of his or her country than those
PEF celebrities such a Charles W. Wilson or a Charles Warren, whose discoveries
have trademarked the colonial mission of “digging for God and country” and still
carry their names to this day.
Studying and understanding archaeology and its relation to Israel’s policies
of occupation can thus not be understood without examining how the field first
evolved from its inception to the time of the Old City’s capture by Israel in 1967 and
then beyond to the present. The use of archaeology for religious and political agen-
das is clearly not an Israeli invention. Colonial models provided the necessary and
persistent basis for the neocolonial or nationalist elaborations of early and current
Zionist endeavors of archaeological exploration. Without the accomplishments—
including trials, errors, and rectifications—of early excavations, Israeli archaeology
would not have made the same undeniable contributions to professional standards,
exemplified by the use of improved field methods, of superior levels of scientific
documentation and analyses, and of increasingly powerful means of public presen-
tation and dissemination tools. The persistent thread in archaeological practice in
Jerusalem is thus the combined product of science and ideology, where one feeds
 Conclusion    165

the other, becomes dependent, and, in fact, reinforces the impact of persuasion
exponentially.

J E RU S A L E M A S A C A SE ST U DY

The religious, social, and political complexities of archaeology and cultural heri-
tage in a contested city like Jerusalem demands an evaluation that considers nu-
merous fields of expertise and methods of inquiry, too vast a project to be sum-
marized in just one book. In fact, the enormity of the task has led me to remain
focused exclusively on this one city, which regrettably resulted in the exclusion of
invaluable comparative investigations. Therefore, I would like to at least point out
that the use or misuse of archaeology and cultural heritage for religious and na-
tionalist agendas not only affects the city of Jerusalem. The phenomena of excava-
tions, cultural heritage, and politics entangled—or the domains of archaeopolitics
and religiopolitics intertwined—are known and have been debated and written on
in various forms and venues, popular and scholarly. The bulldozing of archaeo-
logical layers and monuments and the discarding of artifacts is not exclusive to the
city under scrutiny here. Intentional destruction and biased preservation, display,
and presentation initiatives are known in nearly every place where antiquity and
its legacy are valued. Ideologically motivated excavations and restorations, as well
as manipulated narratives, have left their imprint in numerous other locations in
the region and around the world. In spite of its unique history and complex ethno-
religious and national makeup, Jerusalem is not the only place where cultural heri-
tage has been caught up in a regional struggle.
Trends and developments of biblical archaeology in Jerusalem could be studied
in light of other sites and areas of significance to this field of investigation, within
the Jewish State and beyond, under the banner of one religion versus another.
The role of archaeology in the Israeli educational systems could be contrasted to
similar educational programs in Europe or the United States. Comparisons could
be drawn with existing publications on colonial and nationalist frameworks of ar-
chaeological practice. A more nuanced distinction between colonial and postcolo-
nial situations, between nationalist and post-nationalist, could be established. The
relationship between governing and occupying forces with oppressed minorities
in other domains of cultural or social studies could benefit the analysis of archaeo-
logical practice in Jerusalem and other regions of the Middle East. The impact
of repatriation and restitution of cultural heritage in places that have a similar
historical and political trajectory to Jerusalem could be examined. Parallels could
be shown between Jerusalem and other equally contested cities in war or post-
conflict situations. Placing the competing narratives of Jerusalem’s antiquities into
the larger context of the divides between Western and non-Western ideologies
and the disparity of cultural priorities would be a most timely topic of inquiry; or,
166    Conclusion

more specifically, the conflict of Western and Islamic perceptions of archaeology

and its tragic outcomes could enhance the current interest of the present inquiry
and provide an additional contemporary context of comparison. The possibilities
are nearly endless, and the suggested comparanda may provide some inspiration
for ideas for further investigations. Jerusalem, indeed, is not the only city that has
fallen victim to the religious and political aspirations of individual explorers and
their respective communities or nations. Yet, it is the locus we have selected for
this study, and it may serve as a useful starting point for future research.

M E D IA A N D M A R K E T

An additional domain not sufficiently explored in this study, but pertinent to the
discussion of cultural heritage and ideology in Jerusalem, is the role of archaeol-
ogy’s popular and media portrayal, which capitalizes on the notion of Bible ad-
venture and discovery. Administrative procedures and methodical progress have
clearly imposed an increasingly structured protocol on archaeological endeavors.
Yet, despite the scientific and technological advances in the field, there are still
palpable traces of the original spirit of adventure and spirituality associated with
digging up the city’s biblical past. There may be a general consensus that Parker’s
grandiose quest to find King Solomon’s treasures in Jerusalem was an unreason-
able escapade too blatantly unscientific even to the uninitiated of the early 1900s.
But so many of today’s endeavors in Jerusalem are just as unabashedly moti-
vated by finding relics of Kings David, Solomon, or Herod. This is perhaps best
illustrated with the persistent interest in artifacts, monuments, and sites baring
a biblical significance, the continued involvement and sponsorship of religious
establishments in the excavation, interpretation, and showcasing of finds, as well
as the ever more aggressive media coverage, which successfully promotes the
excitement of discovering finds of relevance to the Jewish and Judeo-Christian
narratives. Numerous projects involving dozens, if not hundreds, of local and
international students and volunteers, the growing educational and tourism in-
dustry that has developed around the discoveries, and, lastly, the economic in-
centive and marketability of antiquities promoting this sense of a tangible link
to the city’s mundane and glorious past have all contributed to both preserve
and promote the original spirit of the field and, most importantly, to lastingly
and broadly impact the social and religious arena of Jerusalem politics. The re-
lationship between media and market—indeed, the dependency and enhance-
ment of archaeology’s public profile in the context of a strategically placed tourist
industry in occupied East Jerusalem—is of interest to the shared ideological and
political ambitions of the Jewish State and Evangelical Christians, a connection
established in numerous other contexts and well deserving of further inquiry
beyond the present framework.
 Conclusion    167

One of the most vivid examples that demonstrates best what I call the “public
travesty of archaeology” is the tunnel excavation in Silwan and the City of David’s
Archaeological Park. Under the pretext of recovering Jerusalem’s glorious bibli-
cal past, rigorously trained archaeologists revert to excavation methods that have
been outdated for more than a century. Millions of dollars are invested in clearing
underground spaces, including an ancient sewage channel, while the living condi-
tions of the Palestinian villagers living above ground are radically compromised.
Proper scientific excavation reports are missing, and valuable scholarly contri-
butions or discoveries enhancing the current knowledge of Jerusalem’s history
are lacking. Though the scandalous nature of this enterprise and the misuse of
archaeology for a purely ideologically motivated endeavor are widely acknowl-
edged in the scholarly literature, its popular image has not been affected by it. The
prominent role entertainment and theme-park packaging play make up effectively
for the monotonous stones and dust. Business thrives on the spirit of the Bible
reenacted. The City of David has indeed achieved the rank of Israel’s most visited
archaeological site, and despite international criticism regarding its obvious as-
sociation with Israel’s settlement policies, it was recently selected as the scenic film
set for a new NBC series entitled DIG.2

M A I N AC T O R S

In a topical study on Jerusalem, Craig Larkin and Michael Dumper have aptly
described the current status quo of cultural heritage and the various players inter-
twined in the struggle. In their words, “Jerusalem remains both an occupied and
a contested city claimed by two national groups, and subject to dynamic regional
trends and global strategic interests. Heritage has becoming an increasing impor-
tant weapon in the ongoing battle for Jerusalem; for Israelis it is a means of con-
solidating power and hegemonic control, for Palestinians it has become a rallying
call for resistance and defiance. UNESCO is caught between two highly politicized
agendas, and is therefore struggling to forge for itself an independent mediating
role or indeed convince either side of the ‘World Heritage’ vision of ‘unity in diver-
sity’ and ‘the promotion of mutual understanding and solidarity among peoples.’ ”3
In this succinct description, Larkin and Dumper identify the three main actors
who participate in the battle over Jerusalem and their diverging roles in cultural
heritage. My study certainly tried to keep these different—indeed, opposing—
perspectives, motivations, and agendas in constant focus. Examples that demonstrate
Israel’s attempts to consolidate power and hegemonic control through archaeologi-
cal activities are numerous. These include recent development projects aggressive-
ly boosting the tourist industry through the construction of enormous architec-
tural complexes such as the Beit Haliba Building or the Kedem Center in the heart
of the Historic Basin, which impose the necessity to conduct so-called salvage
168    Conclusion

excavations. An example illustrating Palestinian resistance and defiance to Israeli

hegemony in East Jerusalem is their refusal to cooperate with the IAA in their
restoration and construction efforts at the Haram al-Sharif. UNESCO’s struggle
to mediate between the two sides of the conflict is evident in the near absence
of efforts to foster interreligious and intercultural dialogues among Israelis and
Palestinians, in contrast to their more productive intervention in other regions of
conflict.4
In my view, one important factor to consider when confronting these different
actors, as Dumper and Larkin’s and similar comparative studies on the conflict at-
tempt to do, is not to impose a frame or model which projects symmetry. Almost
in every aspect that touches upon archaeology and cultural heritage in Jerusalem,
the impact of the involved players is disproportionate. Whereas Israel’s control of
the archaeological landscape, both below and above the surface, as well as of the
narrative that is being projected, is nearly exclusive, Palestinian and international
efforts to counter or even just balance these efforts are modest, if not completely
impotent. This brings us to another aspect of asymmetry not explicitly touched
upon in the body of this study, but transpiring throughout the chapters. It con-
cerns the asymmetry or, perhaps more accurately, the disproportionate weight of
the Palestinian Muslim and the Palestinian Christian heritage of the city. Without
imposing a hierarchy on the value or significance of one versus the other cultural
and religious legacy in the city, the impact of the different involved religious com-
munities in question and their proclaimed legacies on their relationship with the
Israeli government and the Jewish sector of Israeli society more informally is quite
different. And there are multiple reasons for this, not all of which are relevant to
this study. Of bearing to archaeological practice and issues of cultural legacy is
the fact that, given the longer duration of Islamic rule versus Christian gover-
nance in Jerusalem, it is the Muslim heritage that dominates the city’s landscape,
at least quantitatively. Furthermore, since the end of the Crusades, the Muslim
community remained the largest population, a situation that changed only toward
the end of the Ottoman period or the beginning of the British period, when Jews
became the dominant religious community. Relative to the Christian presence,
however, the Muslim community continued to maintain its majority. The most
recent radical change in the demography and the Muslim/Christian ratio occurred
after 1967. When Israel captured East Jerusalem, there were 56,795 Muslims liv-
ing in Jerusalem, as opposed to 10,813 Christians.5 According to the Israel Central
Bureau of Statistics in 2006, 32 percent of the city’s population was Muslim; only 2
percent was Christian. In other words, the role of Palestinian Christians in matters
touching upon cultural heritage in the city, in comparison to Palestinian Mus-
lims, has been relatively minor. And, despite the fact that in recent years there has
been a significant increase in the “Palestinianization of clergy,” most of the city’s
church leaders still belong to nonlocal communities.6 This important numerical
 Conclusion    169

distinction between the city’s Muslim and Christian presence in Jerusalem clearly
has implications on the role cultural heritage plays in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
There are certainly some parallels between Israel’s battles with Palestinian Muslims
and the ones fought with Palestinian Christians. One similarity would be Israel’s
imposed military and policing presence at the city’s major worship sites, namely
the Haram al-Sharif and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The undeniable dis-
tinction, however, is the difference in the scale, the severity, and the frequency of
the clashes of the numerous authorities and communities implicated in the strug-
gle and representing the different sides of the conflict. The list of recent incidents
imposing access restrictions to Muslim worshipers involving armed violence and
terror on and near the Haram would be too long to include here. The last major
incident of tension related to Israel’s security measures controlling the access to
the Holy Sepulchre occurred in 2000, in preparations for the millennium celebra-
tions, for which large crowds of pilgrims were expected. The repercussions for
the Israel-Palestine conflict of this and other similar incidents, however, are negli-
gible compared to the local, regional, and international implications of clashes and
violence surrounding access restrictions to the Haram al-Sharif. Notwithstand-
ing these important distinctions between the different religious communities that
make up Palestinian society, there is nonetheless a shared identity and solidarity
on numerous issues that inform matters of cultural heritage. Though related to
many of the issues examined here, these topics go beyond the scope of my study
and are outside my expertise.

G R A S SR O O T I N I T IAT I V E S

The ongoing battle among the different parties involved in the safekeeping of
the city’s cultural heritage is—apart from numerous other reasons raised in this
study—a result of the differing perceptions of what constitutes Jerusalem’s most
significant periods and cultures. One of the more effective ways of overcoming
this disparity would be to invest in a more diverse and flexible interpretation of the
city’s past, where the narrative is not dominated or controlled by one religious or
national group, but coordinated among all local resident communities, with input
from international participants, third-party specialists, as well as arbitration pro-
fessionals. The concept of heritage belonging to all humankind is not one that can
be imposed and regulated according to a specific protocol that implements merely
physical actions and changes. It requires long-term investment and intervention at
various levels across the different social, religious, demographic, and educational
sectors of society. And most importantly, it requires participation and involvement
of all local groups implicated in the religio-national conflict.
Among the first efforts to overcome the disparity of views regarding archaeo-
logical and cultural heritage in the region was the establishment of an Israeli
170    Conclusion

Palestinian Archaeology Working Group (IPAWG), facilitated by the University of

California Institute of Archaeology. During a series of meetings, which took place
between 2005 and 2009, Israeli and Palestinian archaeologists started to tackle is-
sues of archaeology and cultural-heritage management in Israel-Palestine. One of
the main goals of the group was “to consider various aspects of the role of archae-
ology in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including public perceptions of archaeol-
ogy, the status of archaeological sites and finds in case of the implementation of
a two-state solution, and Jerusalem as a World Heritage Site.” A jointly drafted
document made recommendations regarding the role of archaeological heritage in
a final-status agreement. Furthermore, a complete inventory of Israeli archaeolog-
ical activity in the West Bank between 1967 and 2007, the so-called West Bank and
East Jerusalem Archaeological Database (WBEJAD) was established.7 Efforts to
renew these initiatives have been underway, such as, for example, Emek Shaveh’s
steering committee, which just (in June of 2016) released a comprehensive plan for
managing ancient sites in Jerusalem’s Historic Basin, entitled Guiding Principles
for a Jerusalem Antiquities Master Plan.8
Even if issues of cultural heritage are often considered a relatively minor point
in the much larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and relegated to marginal matters
of disaccord, they do affect surprisingly large segments of the local population and
are major players in the shaping of public opinion. Consequently, if these issues
can be nuanced appropriately, and the problems around them resolved, the pos-
sibilities of negotiations in other areas will have a better chance to advance.

W HAT N E X T ?

With over 1,700 sites having been excavated in Jerusalem, and the considerable
fortunes spent on archaeological fieldwork, interpretation, conservation, and pre-
sentation, our knowledge on the city’s cultural development from prehistory to
the present is tremendous. Archaeological sites, ancient monuments, and artifacts
dominate and indeed overwhelm the landscape. Despite the significant investment
in archaeological practice, most ancient buildings, particularly in the Old City and
the Historic Basin, are neglected and would benefit from a complete overhaul
and restoration program. Moreover, most completed excavations have not been
properly published. It would take decades or perhaps even a century of research,
employing dozens of archaeologists, to make up for the lacking final reports, a
debt that should haunt the profession and alarm those concerned about Jerusa-
lem’s cultural heritage. Conducting further excavations will not only increase the
debt, but it will ultimately widen the gap between actual data and knowledge. The
already-exposed layers, monuments, and artifacts provide us with almost unparal-
leled data to reconstruct Jerusalem’s history through the millennia. Rather than il-
luminating exiting questions, newly excavated material often increases the riddles
 Conclusion    171

and produce new unresolved problems. It is time to halt this activity and invest in
other sectors of the city’s cultural heritage—most importantly, in the domains of
education and professional training as well as the conservation of exposed ruins
and standing monuments. Let us find what is already there, rather than look for
something that may only further complicate both the mysteries of the past and the
conflicts of the present!